If the Nationals offer Dunn a one-year contract in arbitration, which they must do in order to receive compensatory draft picks in the event he signs elsewhere as a free agent, then the Nationals will receive two extra draft picks in the 2011 draft.

Dunn will be eligible to file for free agency five days after the World Series ends, when the exclusive negotiating window closes for the Nationals. The prevailing sense around the league is that the Nationals will not re-sign Dunn this offseason, and the Cubs, according to one league source, are the current favorite to land Dunn.

No matter who signs Dunn, the Nationals will receive a "sandwich" pick in the supplementary round between the first and second round. The first 18 picks of this year's draft are protected, meaning a team that picks in the first 18 picks will surrender its second-round choice if it signs another team's Type A free agent, but a team in the bottom 15 picks of the first round that signs another team's Type A free agent will lose its first-round pick. (There are 33 picks in the first round this year, based on teams receiving compensation for not signing their 2010 first-round pick, like what happened to the Nationals with Aaron Crow in 2008.)

Using the Cubs as an example: The Nationals will receive a "sandwich" pick, roughly the 34th or 35th choice in the draft. They would also receive the Cubs' second-round choice, which will be the eighth choice in the second round. What overall pick that is depends on how many choices are needed for the sandwich round. This year, for example, the eighth pick in the second round was No. 58 overall.

Rays first baseman Carlos Pena, whom the Nationals could be interested in as a potential replacement for Dunn, is a Type B free agent. The Nats would not lose a draft pick if they end up signing him, even if the Rays offer Pena arbitration. Giants first baseman Aubrey Huff -- another potential replacement for Dunn -- is also a Type B free agent.

Wonderful. They get a possible future HOF, extremely consistent slugger, in his prime, and we get some maybe future prospects who we may not sign if they actually want to be paid what they are worth. Sounds like a Lerner deal to me! The Nats have f** this up by the numbers. On the bright side, I am richer since not renewing my ST package. When they field a team worth paying prime market prices to watch, I may re-join the ST club. I don't expect to have to consider that for several years.

Is it me, or does that look like maybe a trend? Is it possible that 2010 wasn't an "off" year for Pena, but that he just can't play very well anymore? If you think Pena is an upgrade over Dunn, you pretty much have to discount the past two years, and ignore the fact that Pena is going to be yet another year older and yet another year further away from his peak year at age 29. This does not strike me as a good bet. Maybe I'm missing something.

Since WSH finished in the 'bottom 10', signing a Type A Free Agent would cost the team a 1st round supplemental pick, and their 2nd round pick (the 1st round pick is protected, based on finish), IIRC. Signing a Type B gives the team he was signed away from a 2nd round supplemental.

Another look back from the previous string . . . the Nats likely spent more money to be in worse shape right now. They could have added some much more MLB ready piece(s) and saved $4M in 2010 salary by trading Dunn and another $2+M on bonuses to the draft picks in 2011. How does Rizzo with a straight face explain not moving Dunn at the deadline?

If Rizzo really doesn't want Dunn back with the Nationals at 1B (for whatever reason he may have), then either 1)sign D.Lee on a 1-year deal +option, 2)sign Adam LaRoche on a 2-year deal with two options, or just move Michael Morse to 1B & trade for / sign a left-or-switch hitting CF-RF with proven 20+HR power (And good luck with that).

This whole town is trending down this year. Just look at the starts by the Wizards and Capitals. At least the Redskins are offering hopes of "mediocrity" and "competitiveness" this year, but not much more. I do not see the Wizards winning more than 20 games this year and the Capitals are actually regressing due to lack of veteran championship leadership. Oh yeah, since this is a Nats blog I will predict that the Nats will be a solid fielding team next year but not much in terms of offense. In other words, they will have the same record as this year but will be less exciting to watch.

Seriously? Look at the starts of the Wizards and Caps? Where exactly is your head at this moment?

The Wizards are mostly going to awful this year. We should have rather low expectations for them

The Caps won the Presidents trophy for most points in the regular season...and got bounced in the 1st round by a 7th seed. Slow starts in hockey and B Ball dont mean s**t. Wake up, dude.

And although I like Dunn as a player, most of the teams he has been with for a full season were under .500. Look it up. Not saying we shouldn't resign him, but does he really win that many games for the Nats? If you remember, when the Nats were playing above .500 in April and May, Dunn was awful and not hitting. When he started to heat up, we began to lose.

I am no expert, but i detect a pattern here. And judging by the moves that MIke Rizzo has made so far as acting GM and GM, I am wiling to concede that he knows more than all of us and will give him the benefit of the doubt until he [roves us all wrong.

Back in my days in the wilderness, the Mets had Dave Kingman. He was a second-rate Adam Dunn, but he kept me watching the horrid teams he was on. It hurts to lose as often as the Nats have the past three years, but it helps ease the pain to have a big bopper who always gives you some hope.

If the Nats are going to be bad, as they might in '11, I just hope there's more than just RZim to keep it interesting.

With the recent emphasis on building through the draft, even for big money teams like the Yankees and Red Sox, some teams might be scared off at the thought of losing a top pick for Dunn, in addition to having to lock him up for a minimum of 3 years (more likely 4).

MASN's Ben Goessling lists the Cubs, Tigers, White Sox, Red Sox, and maybe the Yankees as potential suitors for Dunn this off season.

Dunn has said on numerous occasions that he does not want to be a DH. Every time he is asked the answer is as definitive as it can be. "No, I don't want to be a DH. Yes, I want to play in the field."

I have to believe that Dunn will stick to his guns and force the AL teams to either drastically overpay, get some language in the contract that guarantees playing time at 1B or the OF, or both, which those teams would be reluctant to do.

That leaves the Cubs as the Nats' major competitor for Dunn. Dunn's agent knows this. Rizzo knows this. So, Dunn's agent tells the Big Donkey to start talking about how much he "loves" Chicago and "loves" Wrigley field. Rizzo starts talking about how there are so many other "great" options for free agent first basemen. Both sides are trying to create leverage. Dunn is trying to make it seem like he is ready and willing to leave, so the Nats will pony up the highly sought after guaranteed 4th year in the contract. The Nats are trying to make it seem like they are willing to go in a different direction, so that Dunn will come down from his demands for a guaranteed 4th year. All the while, both sides are saying that their first choice would be to work something out.

But could this just be both sides "doing the dance" that is negotiating multi-million dollar contracts? It's similar to Boras saying that Strasburg will go pitch in Japan for a year, or that Harper will return to JuCo, or that Jayson Werth is a center fielder. It's all to try to drive up the price of the resulting contract.

The end result? The Nats sign Dunn for 3 years and $44 million, with some kind of option for the 4th year.

Again, I still think the Nats should have traded Dunn at the deadline, gotten something in return (an MLB rotation-ready Dan Hudson), and then tried to re-sign Dunn this off-season.

Very well done my friend. It seems to me that your ideas are very probable. I would like to see Dunn back, honestly. But Rizzo and the Lerners are looking at the draft and building a farm system that can sustain a good organization for many years (see the Minnesota Twins or Detroit Red Wings, and now the Washington Capitals). We should not want instant gratification. Patience.

And by the way, Dunn has played for a winning team during his career. The Arizona Diamondbacks in 2008, where he was traded after the deadline.

@SpashCity - I think there's definitely truth in what you say. I think Rizzo also realizes that he undervalued Dunn early in the season and is now behind the eight ball. So while they are both probably playing a certain game, I think the Nats chances of signing him are still fairly low unless Dunn decides that he really wants to stay despite the price. The Cubs are definitely going to outbid us.

"I hate the "Dunn has never played for a good team" argument for not re-signing him."

It's not an argument for not re-signing him. It's an argument against those who say that all will be lost for the Nats if Dunn is not re-signed. Clearly that's not the case, as evidenced by the non-existent contribution Dunn has provided to his team's winning over the years. Winning mojo such as that can never afford to be lost.

Any NL team that signs him will have to overpay (and probably add some sort of a restricted trade clause to his contract) and any AL team that signs him will probably have to seriously overpay. The Baltos are, of course, a possibility since they would love to stick it to the Nats & that RF fence is way short.

For anyone who thinks that Dunn is a future HOFer, you really need to stop smoking whatever you are smoking, unless you honestly think that the standards will be lowered. Between his frighteningly low RISP #s & his only real advantage is having a threat between Zimm & Hammer, he's really Frank Howard lite. Anyone see Frank's plaque in Cooperstown?

BTW EdDCs point is a total non-sequitur. If he hit 10-12 HR & 60 RBI/ year, he wouldn't be in the Majors.

Oddly enough, a possible landing place is NYY. The RF porch is very, very short. They non-tendered Johnson & Berkman, so might be looking for an occasional 1B / DH. Of course, $ is no object for them & they have no problem overpaying. Also, for many the lure of the Yankees is almost amazing.

I don't recall anyone saying "all will be lost if the Nats do not re-sign Dunn." If Dunn is re-signed or if he is replaced with someone just as good, then the Nats stay at the same level of performance, as far as 1B is concerned.

I'll never understand the Dunn hate but it is what it is. At this point Dunn will be happier and richer elsewhere. Its very simple. Without Dunn, the Nats offense will decline. Zimm will hit worse and so on. We could very well be back over 100 losses next year.

Let's let Dunn go and bring in someone who can actually play first base.Focus on pitching and defense first,then worry about hitting.They have the potential for a great infield,one that would bring a certain energy each night.Dunn does not fit that mold.

BTW EdDCs point is a total non-sequitur. If he hit 10-12 HR & 60 RBI/ year, he wouldn't be in the Majors.

If Dunn had not been in the majors, Cincinnati would have won several pennants. If he had never been born, they would be a dynasty. Because a player can't be good if his team doesn't win, and any losing team would be improved it its best offensive player could be gotten rid of. Put another way, the best offensive player on a bad team is responsible for its failures.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.